Ze /FE¥ 


THE 


EUNUCH’S PROFESSION; 


OR, 


THE SONSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST. 


THERE is no subject on which the scriptural writers 
employ more positive terms, than that of the Sonship of 
Jesus Curist. They are full, precise, distinct—they 
press it on the consideration and faitn of their readers, 
with the most uncompromising firmness; and seem to 
estimate it to be “the precious corner stone” of the 
whole system, which the Spirit of God consecrated them 
to develope. Their readers must ‘ believe”—must 
‘‘ believe with all their hearts”’—that Jesus is Tur Son 
or Gop; and, as in the case before us, on the candid and 
ingenuous profession of this great truth, any one might 
be baptized. 

How unanimous and explicit is the testimony thence 
to be derived, which may be readily collated by the 
biblical student! John declares, that the object which 
he had in view in writing his ‘‘ gospel”? was, to satisfy 
the minds of those whom he addressed, that Jesus Christ 
is THE Son oF Gop. The other evangelists, consequent- 
ly, must have furnished their biographic sketches with 

2 


6 


the same intention. Nor only so; but Jesus himself, 
when he said and did the things which they declare him 
to have said and done, must have been actuated by the 
same official purposes. Accordingly you find, that after 
having carefully explained to his disciples in private, the 
subjects which he had presented to the public under the 
veil of parables, he catechised his chosen servants as to 
the impression his preaching had made.—‘‘ Whom do 
men say that I, the son of man, am?”’ On being answer- 
ed, he pressed the disciples themselves, in relation to 
their own views concerning him.—‘‘ Whom say ye that 
Iam?’”? And when Peter replied, “* Thou art the Christ, 
THE SON OF THE LIVING Gop,” their attention was thence- 
forth turned to another subject. Having distinctly and 
intelligently recognised the official personage, or being 
able to declare who he was, they were next instructed 
concerning his works.—*‘ From that time forth began 
Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go 
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and 
the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised 
again the third day.” 

When Martha, mourning over her bereavement, was 
asked by her beloved Master, whether she believed that 
he was ‘‘ the resurrection and the life?’’ she answered, 
‘Vea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, THE Son 
OF THE LIVING Gop, which should come into the world.”’ 
Nothing farther was required. John the Baptist, after 
he had seen the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus, ‘* bare 
record that he was THE Son oF Gop.” Saul, after he 
was baptized, and when he had entered on his apostolic 
course, ‘* straightway preached Christ in the synagogues, 
that he is THE Son or Gop.” And now the Eunuch, 
after Philip had compared the prophecy, which his in- 


7 


genuous pupil was reading, with the facts of the birth, life, 
death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, immediately 
declared —** I believe that Jesus Christ is THE SON oF 
Gop ;” and was, on this profession, unhesitatingly bap- 
tized. 

Without troubling ourselves to collect more various 
testimony, we feel warranted to say, that the belief of 
this great truth is the distinguishing characteristic of the 
Christian, and constitutes his qualification to enjoy all the 
ordinances of Christ’s church. Here we have, so to 
speak, that sacred spot, where the great Captain of salva- 
tion plants his banner, around which all his servants 
should rally, and where contention and strife should cease. 
He who is found here is not to be reviled as a heretic, 
nor excommunicated as an apostate. How easily, me- 
thinks, Christians might, if they would, meet here in 
delightful harmony, and sweet accord! What doth 
hinder ? 

But hold,—the reader would say,—and ask whether 
we do not know, that those who profess to believe that 
Jesus is THE Son or Gop, yet differ about the import of 
this peculiar phrase? that one says, he is the Son of God 
by eternal generation? that another rejects the doctrine 
of eternal generation as contradictory and absurd, while 
yet he firmly believes that the Saviour is divine? and 
that a third refers the whole matter to a mere official dis- 
tinction, and avers that Jesus is a mere man? But then, 
is it not strange, that Jesus, the evangelists, the Baptist, 
and all the apostles, should have so uniformly and unhesi- 
tatingly used this phrase, without ever hinting at these 
embarrassing distinctions? Is it not strange, that a Ro- 
man centurion should speak so pesitively, that an Ethi- 
opian eunuch should be convinced so readily, and that 


8 


even devils should concede so freely, when the simple 
proposition announced was one, that has so long and so 
greatly embarrassed the learned and the philosophic 
among Christians themselves? Whence do these diflicul- 
ties arise? Will the orthodox explain? Will heretics 
solve this problem ? 

The eunuch, like every other man to whom the gospel 
is preached, was required to BELIEVE. But how can a 
man believe a proposition which he does not understand ? 
The readiness of the Ethiopian’s belief would evince, that 
he felt no difficulty; and yet, judging from his inquisi- 
tive and attentive study of the prophecy which he was 
reading, he would promptly have perceived a difficulty 
if any had existed. Indeed, the proposition is never ad- 
vanced by any scriptural writer, as though its terms were 
hard to be understood. The fact is carefully, variously, 
abundantly demonstrated ; but the ferms are uniformly 
taken in their usual scriptural sense; and when, at any 
time, a difficulty was supposed or suggested, it was quickly 
removed by some scriptural quotation, which unequivo- 
cally established the technical import of the term em- 
ployed. 

Nor is this all; but Philip required this Jewish prose- 
lyte to “believe with all his heart;’’ or, with the full, 
clear, intelligent and affectionate consent of his whole 
mind, And what class of truths, may I not ask, can a 
thinking man thus cordially and unequiyocally receive? 
those which are plain, or those which are obscure and 
incomprehensible? Or farther, may I not ask, amid the 
controversies which sectarians have so ardently and obsti- 
nately maintained, can any be said clearly and accurately 
to represent the Sonsuip of Jesus Christ? Does he, who 
builds his theory on the simple humanity of the Saviour, 


9 


feel no misgiving when he hears Paul declare, that his 
Master is THE LorD FROM HEAVEN? Does he, who boldly 
stands forth for the divinity of the great Redeemer, be- 
tray no tremulousness or uncertainty, when asked, what | 
is meant by ‘eternal generation,”’ he answers that it is 
a mystery? In fine, have the community at large any 
clear or well defined ideas of the Sonsuip of Jesus? 
And yet the Scriptural proposition announcing it, must 
be BELIEVED WITH ALL OUR HEARTS—most intelligently, 
most cordially. | 

Cannot this subject be explained satisfactorily to the 
common mind, and so as to leave no room for controversy; 
or at least in such a form, as that the objection shall ap- 
pear querulous and captious, like the Jews, when answer- 
ed by the Master himself? Did not Jesus and the evan- 
gelists present it in such a familiar manner? And are 
we not explicitly commanded to ‘ search the scriptures,” 
and that for the simple reason that they afford the neces- 
sary testimony ? 

But then it may be said, that acute and learned men 
have examined the scriptures a thousand times; that they 
have adopted and developed every principle of exposi- 
tion; and yet that all have failed to remove the mystery. 
With such a fact before us, it would be vain, for the less 
talented men of these times, to do any thing more than 
repeat the doctrines and reasonings of those who have 
gone before them. But, is this protestantism? or, giving 
up ‘private interpretation,” 
doctrine of the reformers, have we gone back to the dog- 
mas of the catholic church? Had not learned men per- 
verted the scriptures, misrepresented the character of the 
Messiah, and introduced a thousand technical terms of 
their own, in the days when the Son of God appeared ? 


and abandoning the first 


10 


And yet, did he not command the public at large to 
<¢ search the scriptures,” and read the testimeny concern- 
ing him for themselves? Did not the apostles, when they 
would plainly ‘preach Christ crucified,” ‘unto the 
Jew a stumbling block, and unto the Greek foolishness,” 
throw aside the worps which man’s wisdom had taught, 
and substitute those which the Holy Ghost had sanction- 
ed; and frame their arguments, by ‘* comparing spiritual 
things with spiritual’? And what shall hinder us, now 
that theological science is so heavily loaded with scholas- 
tic terms and phrases, from throwing aside these techm- 
calities which human wisdom has invented, and, imitating 
the example of the apostles, by ‘* comparing spiritual 
things with spiritual,” do as our Lord has directed us? 
Why talk so incessantly about “three persons in the 
Godhead—eternal generation—trinity—Christ the first 
and noblest of God’s creatures—Christ a good, but a mere 
man,’’—when we all know that these are not scriptural 
phrases, but ‘ words which man’s wisdom teacheth.” 
Still further: why should not the inquiry be instituted, 
and the scriptural analysis fearlessly pursued, Now? 
The age in which we live is one, in which * many are 
running to and fro, seeking after knowledge.” Politi- 
cians as well as ecclesiastics, are compelled to throw out 
their doctrines and principles to be canvassed by the 
public minds; and, whatever may be the result, whether 
favourable or unfavourable to the cause of truth and 
liberty, these interesting matters will be examined. Un- 
der an impulse, thus varied and powerful, theologians 
should not decline the investigation, and force on man- 
kind doubtful terms and unsatisfactory views, which they 
refuse any longer to receive. Indeed the investigation 
should be most promptly undertaken; and the more SO, 


1k 


as theologians are perfectly aware, not only of the condi- 
tion of the public mind, but of the difficulties in which 
scholastic exposition has involved their own science. We 
have before us a late work, in which the writer, belong- 
ing to the Unitarian ranks, observes :—‘‘It has always 
appeared to me, that the true scriptural theory with res- 
pect to the oflice and character of Jesus Christ, has not 
yet been plainly expounded.”’ Nor is it very long since 
another writer, occupying a much higher position in the 
scale of orthodoxy, in one of the evanescent publications 
of the day, boldly averred that the doctrine of the tri- 
nity could not be proved by scripture, nor in any other 
way but by ¢radition, or the testimony of the church. 
All things considered—the master’s commandment— 
the example of the Apostles—the resemblance of our 
difficulties to those which characterized the period of the 
Saviour’s advent—the condition of the public mind, so 
powerfully agitated by a spirit of uncompromising scru- 
tiny—the multiplied controversies of dissolving associa- 
tions—the analogous state of political science and lite- 
rary systems—why may we not, without being reprobated 
as heretics or apostates, originate and firmly pursue an 
inquiry into the scriptural doctrine of the Sonsurp of 
Jesus Christ? and particularly, when it is simply pro- 
posed to follow the apostolic rule, and ‘‘ compare spirit- 
ual things with spiritual? such is the object of the fol- 
lowing remarks. In so far as there may be a deviation 
from the straight line of biblical exposition, or wherein 
scriptural analogies are not appropriately used, the reader 
is earnestly entreated to receive with caution and judge 
with candour; for, who is it, that in forsaking, or be- 
traving his ignorance of the scriptures, has not declined 


12 


into error? and “darkened counsel by words without 
knowledge ?”’—And 

1. It is a fact, unequivocally stated by the evangelists, 
and which is of the utmost importance in our present in- 
quiry, that Jesus Christ had no earthly father. The 
angel said to Mary—‘*‘ The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow 
thee; therefore that holy thing which shall be born of 
thee shall be CALLED THE Son oF Gov.” ‘The spirit 
of prophecy” too, *‘ which is the testimony of Jesus,” 
had long before the evangelists, and as quoted by them- 
selves, announced this peculiar fact;—‘ Behold a virgin 
shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they 
shall call his name Emmanual, which, being interpreted, 
is God with us.”” Nay even at the beginning, and when 
God would adjudicate the case of our erring parents, the 
promise which he gave, contained the same fact.—‘ I 
will,” he said, “put enmity between thee and the wo- 
MAN 3 between thy seed and HER SEED3 HE shall bruise 
thy head, and thou shalt bruise mis heel, and then Eve, 
upon the birth of Cain, made a remark, which, by show- 
ing her own apprehension of the import of the first pro- 
mise, seems to intimate that the promise was illustrated 
by some visible exhibition, perhaps a TRANSFIGURATION 
like that which occurred on mount Tabor. ‘I have,” said 
she, *‘ gotten a MAN, Jehovah his very seLF.” The Son- 
sHIP of Jesus, in this respect, therefore, or that he should 
be ‘the seed of the woman,” and yet be Jenovan, was 
taught by divine revelation, from the beginning. 

This fact, which stands so prominently on the scriptural 
page, and to which inspired writers so unequivocally 
trace up the whole mediatorial scheme, may be recog- 


— 
é 


13 


nized as equally conspicuous in the heathen mythology. 
It is there, indeed, surrounded by a variety of circum- 
stances, which are foreign to itself; or, as Paul declares, 
‘‘the GLory of God was changed into an image made 
like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed 
beasts, and creeping things.”” But still the fact, misin- 
terpreted as it was, formed the basis of all the heathen 
corruptions. An INCARNATION, it was said, had taken 
place—had often taken place—would again take place— 
the great Father had triplicated himself—the ‘gods had 
often come down, in the forms of men, to reform and bless 
mankind. At the very time that Jesus of Nazareth was 
born, the heathens, as well as the Jews, were looking for 
the appearance of some extraordinary personage; for 
‘¢ Virgil, in his Pollio, announces the approaching birth of 
an extraordinary child, whom he decorates with all the 
attributes of the Messiah of the Hebrews. This child 
was to be the high offspring of the gods, the great seed 
of Jupiter. When Julius Cesar wished to crown his great- 
ness by assuming the title of king, one of his creatures 
adduced a prediction from the books of the Sibyl; in 
which it was foretold, that a prince was to arise about 
that time, whose monarchy should be universal, and 
whose government would be essential to the happiness of 
the world. Cicero freely admits that the prophecy in 
question was to be found in the Sibyllian oracles.” 

A fact thus proved, any man, acquainted with the tes- 
timony, may believe—may believe with all his heart. 
Nor can any very serious, or plausible, objection be ad- 
vanced against its truth. It is not incompetent for God 
to mantfest himself to his creatures, in a form and man- 
ner consistent with their own nature. It is not inconsist- 
ent with what had occurred at first, when, as Moses in- 

3 


14 


forms us the Lord God* made the heavens and the earth 5 
or when, as the apostle John declares ‘‘ the word was.” 
Nor is it out of keeping with other subjects on which the 
scriptural writers most freely descant: for if the senses 
of man must be exercised to “‘ discern between good and 
evil,’ because that by these he acquires his ideas, and if 
he can have no conception of pure spir7zt, then God, 
who is a pure SPIRIT, must MANIFEST himself, or man 
must be ignorant of him; and if the fall has taken place, 
and the human race has become so degenerate, that they 
can no longer appreciate or enjoy that personal display, 
then surely a second and now more appropriate, exhibi- 
tion is neither unnatural nor incomprehensible. 

It is true that some have affected to throw a doubt over 
the whole, and to assert the impossibility of the fact. 
But certainly it was no more impossible for God to create 
this ‘holy thing, born of the virgin,” than it is impossi- 
ble for him, by any secondary agency he may employ, or 
by any series of physical laws, of which he himself is the 
author, to create other beings. For aught FI see, these 
objectors must go back, and deny that God created Adam 
out of the dust of the ground, or in any other manner 
indicative of his immediate power; and thus, while it is 
evident that each individual of the race had a beginning, 
it would follow, that the race itself had no beginning— 
that matter is eternal—that there is no God. But if it 
be admitted that God did create Adam, a similar act of 


x ° * e . . 
Exon is the official term, belonging, as the Redeemer explains it, 


to those “by whom the word of God came :” and thus Moses appends: 


the term to the name of Jehovah, intending to designate him as mant- 


FESTING HIMSELF ; or terms him Jehovah—E out, which we have 
translated the Lord God. 


15 


power on his part, cannot be in 2fse/f irrational or impos- 
sible. The only question, that could arise about it, 
would be, whether an occasion had occurred, which re- 
quired such an act? ‘That occasion occurring the im- 
probability of the act is entirely removed, and, in the 
transactions of a God of mercy, it would be the most 
probable, the most dignified, and the most rational course 
to be pursued. It would be the very thing which man 
could not do, and would constitute the best credential of 
the divine authenticity of the system, that should be based 
upon it. Accordingly the scriptural writers adopt this 
very parallelism. Christ, they say, is the second Adam— 
by the offence of the first, all men became sinners, and by 
the righteousness of the second all men have become 
righteous. In Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made 
alive—and, in tracing up the generations of the Re- 
deemer, they carry on their genealogical inquiry, until 
they arrive at Adam; of whom they say, as they have 
said of Christ, he was THE SON oF Gop. 

Thus far any man may Jelieve, and with all his heart, 
in the Sonship of Jesus Christ, nor feel that he has any 
greater difficulty to surmount, than when he is called 
upon to believe that God created man at first, and that 
we are all the children of the Most High. 

2. Official men are often styled in scripture THE Sons 
oF Gop. Moses thus denominates the descendents of 
Seth, in contrast with those of Cain, and speaks of the 
Sons of God, marrying with the daughters of men. In_ 
the books of Job, the angels, as they are described, when 
encompassing the divine throne, are called THE SONS OF 
Gop. Thus also, it is beautifully said, that, when the 
foundations of the earth were laid—‘‘ the morning stars 
sang together, and all rHE Sons or Gop shouted for joy.” 


16 


Israel, or the Jewish nation, in God’s demand to Pharaoh, 
is, in view of the official purpose for which that people 
were chosen, called God’s son-—his FIRST BORN. David 
calls all official men* Gops, or sons or THE Most Hicu; 
and by the interpretation which Jesus gave of these 
titles, they were applied to those “by whom the word of 
God came,” or those whom he employed as his ministe- 
rial organs, for the communication of truth. As then 
‘the word of God came” to men by Jesus Christ, as he 
was a prophet—a priest—a king, the title is legitimately 
given to him. In this respect, no man may hesitate to 
believe—any man may believe with all his heart, the 
scriptural proposition—‘ Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 

In taking this second view, we have not deviated from 
the straight scriptural line, which we proposed to pur- 
sue. For, ona Certain occasion, when ‘ the Jews took 
up stones to stone him,” he said to them, “‘ Many good 
works have I showed you from my Father, for which of 
these works do you stone me? ‘The Jews answered him, 
saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blas- 
phemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thy- 
self Gop. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your 
law, I said, Ye are cops? If he called them cops, unto 
whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot 
be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sancti- 
fied, and sent into the world—Thou blasphemest; because 
Isaid, Iam THE son oF Gop?” The quotation which 
the Saviour employs in justification of his pretensions as 
the SANCTIFIED ONE, is taken from the book of Psalms.* 
At first sight his reply may seem to evade the difficulty ; 
but a little examination will show, that he met it in full 


* Psalm Ixxxii. 6. 


iv 


front, and left the Jews unable to answer. The whole 
verse as it stands in the Psalm, from which the clause is 
taken, reads thus: ‘‘I have said, Ye are Gops: and all 
of you are children of the Most High.”” Thus we have 
a poetical couplet, socommon in Hebrew poetry, in which 
the same idea is repeated, though in different phrase. 
The titles cops and SONS OF THE MOST HIGH are equiva- 
lent to each other; and the Redeemer uses these terms, 
not as having a different signification, but as being inter- 
changeable with each other. If then we should suppose 
him to have used one, and either, of these official titles, 
in both parts of his answer, his meaning would be very 
plain, and his reply would appear to have been as expli- 
cit, as any one could desire. Thus: “It is said in 
the scriptures—I said ye are cops. If he called them 
Gops, to whom the word of God came, say ye of him, 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, 
Thou blasphemest, because I said, [am cop?” Or thus: 
“It is said in the scriptures—I said all of ye are sons oF 
THE Most Hien. If he called them sons or THe Most 
Hicu, to whom the word of God came, say ye of him, 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, 
Thou blasphemest, because I said, [am THE SON OF THE 
Mosr Hien?” ‘The answer is both plain and direct. 

But when we have the meaning of this, apparently 
equivocal, passage thus made evident and clear, you can- 
not fail to perceive, that Jesus proves and justifies his 
pretensions, by the simple scriptural fact, that all official 
men, by whom the word of God came, made the same 
or like pretensions, and that the scriptures, which can- 
not be broken, and which commit no mistakes, called 
them THE sons OF Gop. Most justly, therefore, may 


18 


he, as God’s sanctified one, call himself THE SON OF 
Gop. Thus far, I again remark, we stand on sure ground; 
and may be perfectly confident, that we havea distinct 
and accurate understanding of our subject. 

But now it may be asked, is not Jesus immeasurably 
superior to the prophets—to the priests—and to the 
kings, whom Jehovah in old times employed as his ser- 
vants? ‘The question is proper and important; but then, 
let it be remembered, it must be answered from the scrip- 
tures; and is not to be arbitrarily determined by coun- 
cils, who may assume the power to condemn heresies, 
and define articles of faith. ‘Therefore, we may go on 
to observe, 

3. That in the bible, a comparison is instituted be- 
tween Christ and these ancient ‘children of the Most 
High;” and that with the avowed purpose of showing 
him to be “‘ anointed with the oil of gladness above his 
fellows.” If then we would satisfactorily answer the 
question, which has been stated, we must carefully and 
diligently attend to the comparison thus afforded by “the 
scriptures,” which ‘* cannot be broken.” 

There have been, ‘there are differences of ADMINIS- 
TRATIONS, but the same Lord.” Among these the two | 
dispensations, or, as Paul calls them, ‘* the two coven- 
ants,”” stand prominent; and their respective relations 
and constitutions, the Redeemer frequently endeavoured 
to illustrate. With this view, he proposed to the Jews 
the following parable: ‘‘ There was a certain householder 
which planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, 
and went into a far country. At proper seasons he sent 
his SERVANTS to receive of the fruits of it. These the 
husbandmen shamefully abused, beating one, killing an- 
other, and stoning a third. ‘This was done more than 


19 


once. And finally the householder determined to send 
his Son, presuming that he would command all reverence 
and respect. But when the husbandmen saw him they said, 
‘this is the Heir; come, let us kill him, and seize on his 
inheritance.”* There is no mistaking the import of this 
parable, for Jesus has himself explained it; and the chief 
priests and Pharisees perceived that his allusions were to 
themselves. In this instance the difference, after which 
we are inquiring, is very evident. All other official in- 
dividuals, when a contrast is designed, are called sEr- 
VANTS 3 and the distinguishing title of Son is appropri- 
ated to Jesus Christ. 

When Paul wished to explain to his kinsmen, accord- 
ing to the flesh, the official pretensions of his Master, he 
observed—*‘ God, who at sundry times, and in divers 
manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the pro- 
PHETS, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, 
whom he hath appointed Herr of all things.” The 
secondary title of PROPHETS is, in this comparative state- 
ment, applied to those who had been called “the chil- 
dren of the Most High ;” while the primary one of Son 
is reserved for Jesus Christ. Afterwards, when the 
apostle would be more distinct and specific, he selects 
Moses, the highest in oficial standing among old testa- 
ment prophets, and remarked—** Moses was faithful in 
all God’s house as a SERVANT; but Christ as a Son, over 
HIS OWN HOUSE—over his own community of saints— 
his chosen people—his holy nation.” Here again, in 
comparison, Moses sinks into the servant, and Christ 
appears as the Son. 

But why this distinction? All the prophets were call- 


* Matt. xxi. 33—46. 


20 


ed sons; and why should the title be dropped, under the 
circumstances stated? What superiority is thereby in- 
dicated? and on what scriptural principles is that supe- 
riority awarded to the Redeemer? It has no doubt been 
perceived, in the cases quoted, that he who is styled the 
Son, is also said to be the Heir. And this is the peint 
of distinction which Paul called upon his brethren to no- 
tice—* Being,’’ says he, ‘*made sO MUCH BETTER than 
the angels, as he hath. by INHERITANCE obtained a more 
excellent name than they.” 

But what is the value of the distinction? Be it re- 
membered, that we are discussing a question of divine 
government—the subject of Lorpsuip in the house of 
God—or “the differences” of those divine ‘adminis- 
trations,”? in all of which there is ‘the same Lorp.’? 
As such subjects are to be illustrated to the human mind, 
the terms which are used, and the similes which are em- 
ployed, must all be borrowed from human things, or the 
visible institutions which God himself established among 
men. Going back, then, to the primitive form of govern- 
ment, which God had erected, we readily perceive that 
it was carried on in the line of the natural relations; and 
to this, as authorized by a divine ordinance, the world 
must at some future period return. The FATHER was 
HEAD, Or LORD, in his own family; and the oldest son 
was his official Herr. All authority, and the means ne- 
cessary to sustain that authority, were transmitted to the 
FIRST-BoRN. Adam was prophet, priest and king, in 
his own family ; and Cain, who eventually forfeited his 
birth-right, was the HE1R of these official honours. Hence 
it is, that Christ is said to be “the FIRST-BOoRN among 
many BRETHREN ”’—* the image of the invisible God, the 
FIRST-BORN of every creature’’—‘“‘ the beginning, the 


2k 


FIRST-BORN from the dead, that in all things he might 
have the PRE-EMINENCE.” 

And what would be the extent of this political autho- 
rity, or the amount of these oflicial honours? A very 
important question, and one which goes to the very heart 
of the subject; but one which cannot be answered, with- 
out first ascertaining who the Faruer is. If the Father 
be a mere man, the constitution which endows him with 
supremacy will readily determine the extent of political 
rule which that term implies. But if God be the Faruer, 
what then is the extent of the inherited authority? And 
surely every one knows, that there is no truth more 
promptly, more frequently, or more unequivocally assert- 
ed in the scriptures, than this, that God himself is the 
Farner of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is, 
therefore, as clear as any inference can be, that all the 
authority which belongs to God the Father, as the great 
governor of the world, is thus transmitted to Jesus Christ, 
his Son and Hetr. 

The conclusion, which we have reached, is most clearly 
and abundantly sustained in the scriptures themselves. 
‘¢ Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also doeth 
the Son likewise.—As the Father raiseth the dead, and 
quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he 
will.—The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed 
all judgment to the Son: that all men should honour the 
Son, even as they honour the Father.—All things that 
the Father hath are mine.—All power is given unto me 
in heaven and in earth.—It pleased the Father that in 
him should all fulness dwell.—In him dwelleth all the 
fulness. of the Godhead bodily.—He is the head of all 
principality and power.” ‘These, and many like pas- 
sages of the scriptures, most clearly and incontestibly 

4 


22 


ratify the inference we have drawn ; and exhibit Jesus, 
in the character of the Son, exercising all the power, 
and consequently displaying all the attributes, belonging 
to God himself, as the creator and governor of the hea- 
vens and the earth. Surely, then, Jesus cannot be char- 
acterized by simple humanity, or be a mere man. No 
prophet nor apostle, no SERVANT ef God from Adam 
down, has been distinguished in this way. The FATHER 
and the Son alone, are described as possessed of, and as 
capable of wielding this vast political power ; and it 
proves that both, or it proves that neither, is the ever 
living and eternal God. 

But still further. The Bible avers their oneness, in 
view of their divinity. “I and the Father are onz,” 
said the Redeemer. ‘The Father dwelleth in me.””— 
‘$Gop 1s In Curist.”—“In the beginning the Word 
WAS,” or subsisted as a personal manifestation of God: 
this “‘ Word was with God, (Jehovah) and the Word was 
Gop.* And the Worp was made FLESH, and dwelt 
among us.—Christ Jesus, being IN THE FoRM oF Gop, 
thought it not robbery to be equal with (like unto) God, 
but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was found in the likeness of men.— 
The second man is the Lorp FRoM HEAVEN.—There are 
differences of administrations, but THE SAME LorD.’’ 
Evidently, he who was the Creator is also the Redeemer ; 
the same great and glorious being is the author of both 
law and gospel. 

But, the reader will ask, how can this be? Does not 
this oneness destroy all distinction? and will it not con- 
vert the whole subject into a mere collection of words? 


* Moses calls him Jehovah-ExLouim. 


23 


By no means. On the contrary this oneness is indispen- 
sably necessary to the existence of the distinction. The 
reader will please to remember, that, in following this 
argument, he is canvassing a portion of political philoso- 
phy. The official epithets Farner—Son—Herr— 
Hrap—Lorp, are all political; and, in the present case, 
they are employed to exhibit and explain to us the divine 
GOVERNMENT. Man himself, in his political relations, 
as well as in his personal constitution, is, in biblical phrase, 
‘‘the image of God.” ‘The only way by which we can 
therefore acquire clear and accurate ideas of this sup- 
posed MYSTERY, is to compare it with the political rela- 
tions of man; for in these we have the image, and the 
highest image, which God has selected ; which, so far as 
our knowledge goes, to whom the revelation is made, 
could be selected ; and which the most fastidious may not 
abandon without committing folly. 

The nation—any corporate body—may change its in- 
dividual members, or its exterior forms, and yet the na- 
tion or corporate body, as such, will remain the same. 
The Jews, during the different reigns of David and Solo- 
mon, were not two different nations; but were precisely 
the same political person. The kingship, as a political 
power, was not destroyed, when it changed the exterior 
form of the king, and Solomon was substituted in the room 
of David. The spirit of the nation or community, so to 
speak, did not expire when the supreme power was trans- 
mitted from the Faruer to the Son; or when one gene- 

ation passed away, and another succeeded. ‘This, every 
man, who has thoughtfully investigated the principles of 
political society, readily comprehends; and finds in the 
idea of the spirit of the community a solution for every 
problem involved in political operations, and which en- 


24 


ables every man to enjoy the benefits, or subjects him to 
feel the evils, arising from official acts. 

Such is the image, by which the scriptures would ex- 
plain to us the operations of the divine government. If 
we can trace the resemblance, we shall then acquire the 
ideas, which God intended to teach us. Accordingly, 
the first great principle is this—‘‘God is a Sprrir.” 
And the cardinal fact is—‘‘ There are diversities of gifts, 
but THE SAME Srrrit—there are differences of adminis- 
trations, but THE sAmME Lorp—and there are diversities 
of operations; but it is THE SAME Gop which worketh 
all in all.”” If then, the inquirer after the peculiarities 
of Godhead, can conceive the idea in relation to it, which 
is forced upon him by the political organization of society, 
and to which God himself refers for explanation; and that 
is THE MULTIFORM MANIFESTATION OF SPiritT——he has 
the whole subject before him, in its own simplicity and 
clearness. 

The principle, on which this whole exhibition is foun- 
ded, is simply this; that man, by the constitution of his 
nature, cannot perceive, or have any knowledge of pure 
spirit. We know nothing each of the other’s spirit, 
but as it is clothed with personal form, and thence becomes 
qualified for personal action. Such was the fact with 
Adam before, as well as after, he sinned. There was, 
therefore, in the constitution of his nature, an indispen- 
sable necessity for a personal manifestation of his Creator. 
This personal manifestation Moses introduces to our no- 
tice as THE Lorp Gon—John refers to it as the worn, 
which was with God—Paul alludes to it in the phrase, 
‘being in THE FORM OF Gop;” and again, when he 
speaks of Christ as being ‘the exact image of God’s 
PERSON.” 


29 


When Adam fell, and his nature suffered that greatly 
deteriorating change, emphatically denominated ‘the 
weakness of the flesh,”’ this personal manifestation became 
too glorious for man to behold. God informed Moses that 
“no man should see him and live.”” Yet the neces- 
sity for such a personal manifestation remained ; and ac- 
cordingly, in the remedial system, Jehovah, by “being 
found in the likeness of man,” afforded to us “‘an exact 
image of his Person,” which should subserve his media- 
torial purposes, and fully meet the emergency introduced 
by the fall. And this second display, not intended to be 
a second divine Person, but ‘‘ the exact image of the di- 
vine person,”’ being afforded by the word manifesting him- 
self in the flesh, we have revealed to us, him, who, ac- 
cording to the uniform scriptural use of political terms, 
is called THE Son oF Gop. In his face we contemplate 
“the glory of God,’ shining forth in resplendent 
“¢ brightness ;”” the nearest, the most distinct view of God, 
which we can have in our fallen state. And the great 
remedial fact, or the high official display—the manifesta- 
tion in the flesh—would be thus accurately and fully 
stated :—** No man hath seen God at any time; the only 
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he 
hath declared him.” 

Perhaps it may be objected, that Jesus himself says,— 
“‘The Father is greater than I.”? And by this some 
would understand, that he unequivocally disclaimed divi- 
nity, and frankly avowed simple humanity ; while others 
would say, that he refers to his human nature, but to that 
nature in connexion with the divine nature, the union of 
which two natures constitutes the mediatcrial person. 
Neither of these commentators can satisfy the other, that 


26 


his interpretation is true; and the declaration still re- 
mains a difficulty, which no exposition has fairly removed. 
If the preceding views, which have been taken simply 
from the scriptures, and without any regard to sectarian 
glosses, be true, the fact must be just as the Redeemer 
declares itto be. The term Farner, like the term SON, 
in the political arrangements to which reference is made 
by scriptural writers, and whenever they derive their 
images,—the term Faruer is oflicial. ‘Then the decla- 
ration, which we are considering, would not utter the ap- 
parent incongruity, that God is greater than Azmse/f; 
but that one manifestation of God is greater than another 
manifestation of God; one external exhibition of the su- 
preme power is superior to another external exhibition of 
the supreme power. And surely there is nothing very 
marvellous or inexplicable in such a fact. All God’s 
works exhibit himself, and show forth his glory; but in 
these works there is a multitude of different systems— 
one rising above another in beautiful gradation, and one, 
of course, superior to, and greater than another. 
Referring to political arrangements among men, if a 
case can be supposed, in which plenary power would be 
entrusted to the Son, while yet the FatTuer is not re- 
moved, the fact would be perfectly analogous to that 
which the Redeemer affirms. Nor would it be wild to 
suppose such a case3 for it is precisely the very one 
which the Redeemer himself details in the parable of the 
householder and the rebellious husbandmen. The Son 
is supposed to be sent, with all the oflicial symbols of ple- 
nary power, which would belong to him by znheritance ; 
while yet the Farner is still represented as possessing 
like power, and finally coming to avenge the indignity 


27 


offered to his Son. Which would be, in the estimation 
of the biblical expositor, or the student of political 
science the GREATER? No mana of candour would he- 
sitate. But in that parable, the Redeemer intended 
to exhibit his own official position, as being ‘‘sent by 
the Father,” and as having ‘all power in heaven and 
in earth given unto him.” ‘ Have ye never read,” said 
he to those whom he was addressing at the time, “ have 
ye never read in the scriptures—The stone which the 
builders rejected, the same is become the head of the 
corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in 
our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of 
God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bring- 
ing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall 
on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall 
fall, it will grind him to powder.” 

The apostle Paul gives us essentially the same view, 
when speaking of the kingdom of Christ, he remarks— 
‘Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up 
the k1nGpom to God, even the FATHER; when he shall 
have put down all rue and all aurHority and all 
POWER. For he must reten, till he hath put all ene- 
mies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be de- 
stroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his 
feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, 
it 1s manifest that he is excepted, who did put all things 
under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him 
who did put all things under him, that Gop MAy BE ALL 
AND IN ALL.” All the terms, which the apostle employs, 
are political; as is the subject on which he writes. And, 
in such cases, the superior GREATNESS of the FATHER 


28 


is a very manifest and consistent matter, as he intimates, 
which any one may clearly see. 

The nature of the whole subject, in connexion with 
the views stated with regard to man himself, requires that 
the fact should be as the Redeemer declared it was. For 
the first manifestation of Jehovah, ‘‘the form of God,” 
or the divine Person, is too glorious for our fallen state. 
No man can see God, thus manifested and live. It is on 
this incomeptency, that the whole remedial plan is based 5 
yet that same remedial plan incorporates in itself original 
principles, and is professedly LiKe the first institute. A 
second manifestation had become necessary, in conse- 
quence of this human infirmity ; and when afforded it. 
must be LIKE, or as Paul says, “‘ the exact image of,”’ the 
first. And when the remedial system shall have accom- 
plished its object, or when the redeemed shall be brought 
by faith to that state, to which Adam’s children would 
have been brought by works, the original powers shall 
then exist in their own integrity and contemplated per- 
fection; and consequently the original manifestation, ‘the 
form of God,” the divine Person, shall be the appropriate 
exhibition of the great God; or, as Paul says, God, even 
the Farner, shall be all in all. We shall see God As HE 
is. The original manifestation of God, which was suited 
to man in his state of innocence, and shall be suited to him 
in his state of perfect blessedness, is superior to, or 
ereater than, the second manifestation 5 inasmuch as this 
second manifestation is suited to man, only as in a state of 
infirmity. And all this is perfectly consistent with the 
fact that in both cases we have a manifestation of God 
HIMSELF. 

Much of the confusion, on this subject, arises from the 


29 


common idea, that redemption 1s a greater work than cre- 
ation, and that the gospel is greater than the law. If this 
idea be correct, then the Son should be greater than the 
Father; the second manifestation should be superior to 
the first; or the image of a person should be more trans- 
cendently excellent than the person. And then what 
notion could we have of the FALL? or what would be the 
amount of the fact, that mankind are sINNERS? Even, 
on general considerations, it might be asked, can a re- 
medy be superior to that which it is intended to relieve? 
Can a medical agent be superior to the power of a sound 
constitution ? Can chastisement be better than good char- 
acter? or legal penalty be more excellent than legal righ- 
teousness? And in morals, where is the supposed greater 
glory, when man at last, shall be brought to the very same 
issue, to which he would have been brought, had the law 
been preserved in its own integrity? Or is the Redeemer 
called upon to do any thing more than the first Adam was 
required to do, i. e. to work out the righteousness of the 
law? Nothing else is necessary ; nor was any thing else 
done. For the deathof Christ formed a part of his righte- 
ousness; inasmuch as the law could not have been fulfilled, 
until its penalty, after having been incurred should have 
been executed. Hence Jesus is scripturally said, to have 
been ‘ obedient unto death.” 

It may now be inquired, what, according to the pre- 
ceding principle of exposition, are we to understand by 
the Hoty Guosr? Political philosophy does not, as it 
was embodied in the original form of government, which 
God had identified with the natural relations, hold forth 
to our view any third superior officer. The official epi- 
thets, at first, were simply Father and Son. But there 
is an idea, perfectly consistent with that philosophy, and 

o 


30 


very common, ina thousand forms, among thinking and 
intelligent men; and that is, a man’s spirtt may be sup- 
posed to be, where he is not personally presents and those, 
who should be under his dominion, would feel a controlling 
influence, as though he were personally present. In this 
way the spirit of a prince would be felt to pervade his 
whole empire; would proceed alike from the Father and 
the Son; and would never destroy, or in the least degree 
impair, the free agency of their subjects. 

This political idea, however, it might be said, would 
suggest no more than mere influence or energy. And so 
far as man is concerned, this would be true; because no 
man, under the circumstances stated, could be really 
present. But let it not be forgotten, that man, in his 
personal and political relations, is merely said to be the 
image of God. The two subjects are alike. Now, when 
God retired to his throne, ‘‘ entered his rest,’’ became 
invisible in his own blaze of light and glory, or was no 
longer personally present, his Sprrrr, as he can be really 
_present every where, would not be mere influence, but 
HIMSELF, invisibly superintending his own works; and 
would be considered as ‘ proceeding”’ from the Father, 
or from the Father and the Son, according as law or gos- 
pel, creation or redemption would be the subject of dis- 
cussion. But there would be no personal exhibition; and 
‘“‘the manifestation of the Spirit given unto man to profit 
withal;”’ if the apostolic phrase has any reference to that 
which is denominated the Holy Ghost, would simply refer 
io God’s own invisible and sovereign operations in bestow- 
ing his various gifts; and the manifestation itself, instead 
of being personal, would be rendered evident only by the 
instrumentality of secondary agents. He might descend 
‘6as a dove,” or ‘as fire,” or be felt as “a rushing 


Jl 


mighty wind,” but never could be recognised as a PER- 
son. ‘The various doctrines, or conclusions, which are 
based upon the idea of his being a distinct person, are 
therefore necessarily fallacious. 

In the fondness, which unfortunately is but two pre- 
valent, to identify a modern speculation with some old 
and hateful heresy, which may be buried from the public 
eye among ecclesiastical antiquities; or which, existing 
still, may perplex the generality of religious professors, by 
the multitude of phrases it may present, the foregoing views 
may be by force identified with Unitarianism, or Sabel- 
lianism. ‘This disingenuous course deserves to be severely 
rebuked, as altogether unworthy of Christian and intelli- 
gent moralists. But still, it is unhappily, so common, 
that it must be met in full front, and be fairly exposed. 

What is Unitarianism? Are we to understand by it, 
that there is but one living, true, and eternal God. All 
trinitarians believe this doctrine. In this view all, with- 
out any exception, are, therefore Unitarians. They, who 
are acquainted with controversial writings on this subject, 
know, that this remark has been often made, and that 
Unitarianss as such, have been severely consured for ap- 
propriating this lofty and expressive appellation to them- 
selves. It is true that trinitarians have been accused of 
holding a doctrine which necessarily leads to tritheism ; 
and it may be that there is abundant room for the impu- 
tation. But they deny the supposed conclusion, and 
should be honourably treated, as sincere and honest men. 

Moreover this charge presses trinitarianism beyond the 
proposition just stated. Let us also press unitarianism, 
popularly so called, beyond that proposition, and observe 
the first step that is taken. One party, with Arius, a 
controvertist of the fourth century at their head, main- 


32 


tain, it is said, “ that the Son is essentially distinct from 
the Father; that he was only the first and noblest of God’s 
created beings, whom God the Father formed out of 
nothing, and the instrument which the Father used in 
creating this material universe; and therefore, that he 
was inferior to the Father, both in nature and in dignity?” 
And if this be unitarianism, then is there all the differ- 
ence between it, and the views presented in the preced- 
ing pages, that there is between God Azmse/f, and a mere 
creature. . 

Some others have advanced the idea of the simple 
humanity of Christ, and have declared that he wasa good 
man, and an excellent prophet, who set us an example of 
every moral virtue; but still, he was a mere man. Neither 
can this statement be identified with the previous discus- 
sion. There is between the two, all the difference that 
there is between God himself, and a mere man. It is not 
worth while to pursue this contrast any further; as, into 
one or the other of these views, all the modifications of 
unitarianism, popularly so called, it is presumed, may be 
resolved. And he, who undertakes to identify Jesus 
Christ with God Aimse/f, in the political principles ad- 
vanced and adopted in the scriptures, has, it is conceived, 
abandoned unitarianism. 

Then again, we may proceed to inquire, what is Sa- 
bellianism. No two writers seem to give the same ac- 
count of this supposed heresy. Those, who appear to 
have examined the question most critically, are equally 
embarrassed, when they undertake to define the reputed 
error. The best view, which we can make up from the 
examination of the means within our reach, would be the 
following: Sabellius lived in the third century. Arius 
and Alexander, the two great disputants on the subject 


33 


of trinity in the fourth century, may then be supposed to 
have been fully qualified to tell what Sabellianism was; 
unless indeed, controvertists then were as unable, or as 
unwilling to understand each other, as they appear to be 
now. If they were thus disingenuous and unreconcilable 
in their feelings, while we should have a very melancholy 
fact disclosed to us, we should also be constrained to 
abandon the use of an opprobrious epithet, whose precise 
import cannot be stated; and which can, under such cir- 
cumstances, be employed, only to frighten the ignorant, 
or cover an indolence to examine the scriptures ;— 
which indolence it would be thought more honourable to 
conceal. 

But to proceed. Arius accused his bishop Alexander, 
who strenuously maintained that there are three persons 
in the Godhead, of advocating the doctrines of Sabelliuss 
and Arius was an acute, intelligent and influential man. 
At this early period their trinitarianism itself was con- 
sidered to be Subellianism. 

Alexander, in order to repel this charge, in a letter 
addressed to another Alexander of Byzantium, states that 
Sabellius taught ‘the separation and eflluxes of parts in 
God, after the manner of material bodies.” Of course, 
according to this doctrine, Sabellius made out that the 
Father was one part, the Sona second part, and the 
Spirit a third part in God. And surely nothing that 
even looks like this, can be affirmed of a statement, which 
simply proclaims the multiform manifestation of the same 
intelligent and eternal Spirit, whom we call Jehovah, and 
by whom all things were made. | 

And what do trinitarians believe? That there are 
three persons in the Godhead—do they not; But what 
isa Person? A living, thinking, acting being—is it 


34 


not? Hence it is that they are accused of maintaining 
that there are three thinking beings in Godhead, and 
consequently three Gods. This, however, these brethren 
deny; and explain by saying, that they use the term per- 
son in an anomalous sense; and that finding personal 
attributes and actions ascribed to the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, they know of no better term, by 
which to express the peculiar fact; though, in its strict 
sense, that term is inappropriate. And has the Holy 
Ghost used no terms sufficiently competent to express the 
great truths he would reveal? Or, has he not warned 
us against employing words, which man’s wisdom has 
taught? and counselled us ‘‘to hold fast the form of 
SOUND WoRDS,” which inspired lips have uttered? Sa- 
bellius himself could not have denied that attributes and 
actions, betokening an intelligent agent, were ascribed to 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Neither 
could he have explained his ‘* separations and eflluxes of 


2”? Between these two undefinable terms then— 


parts. 
PERSONS and PARTS—so inexplicable and embarrassing, 
there would not appear to be much difference. Arius, 
of course, judged right. If there be any Sabellianism in 
the church, and if it be a reproachful heresy, which in- 
telligent readers of the Bible should reject, trinitarians 
are themselves the Sabellians. 

The popular idea of Sabellianism, however, is, that its 
author supposed the scriptures to teach simply three dif- 
ferent relations, in which God is represented to act 
towards man. And how came the public so quickly to 
settle a question, which yet remains a matter of discussion 
on the pages of ecclesiastical history? And if Sabellius 
did give his doctrines this peculiar form, has that been 
the import of the foregoing argument? Or, if such has 


35 


been the doctrine advanced here, will the trinitarian dis- 
own his own interest in such a view? and decline ad- 
mitting that he too would discourse of divine relations? 
Does he not speak freely of the economic character of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? and can he 
point out any greater difference between economic char- 
acter and economic relation, than he can between person 
and part? Or, if we should consent to the idea of God’s 
relation to us as Creator, and his relation: to us as Re- 
deemer, thus applying the term to the two manifesta- 
tions which God has made of HIMSELF to man, and in 
view of the two forms of government—law and gospel— 
which have been successively established, could any trin- 
itarian have ought to object? 

But to conclude. The doctrine, intended to be here 
set forth, is simply this—the multiform, or rather the 
double form, of the manifestation of the same eternal 
Spirit, which was intended to meet the circumstances 
of man, as, by the constitution of our nature, both before 
and after the fall, acquiring his ideas by means of his cor- 
poreal senses. As Paul says:—‘‘ There are diversities 
of gifts, but THE sAME spirit. And there are differen- 
ces of administrations, but rHE SAME Lorp. And there 
are diversities of operations; but it is THE SAME Gop, 
which worketh all in all.” And this, without any dif_i- 
eulty or misgiving, any man who reads, thinks, and prays, 
may BELIEVE, may believe with ALL HIS HEART. 


ie mW 


¥ Hist it Ui wes is one te ate | ‘ i 
» P " ae i a *, 
Mis age ua tev 
A i, 


ey: 
é 


